From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: *Completions* in minibuffer-only frames Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:46:17 +0100 Message-ID: <5C6C40E9.1010505@gmx.at> References: <5C6BCCDD.3030907@gmx.at> <83o977iw1u.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="64179"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 19 18:47:48 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gw9Uh-000Gap-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:47:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52820 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw9Ug-0007hO-CG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:47:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43771) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw9Tb-0007VD-7O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:46:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw9TT-0007Z8-2P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:46:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]:52233) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gw9TR-0007XN-7q; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:46:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([213.162.73.174]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXllr-1gZrss2F5L-00Wn5I; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:46:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83o977iw1u.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:+bxl1egdmsDOcKyYO4YPCCKwqYVJTbJ6qz3ldax+r+4DUf71RRg hTQyVi0Hl8q7MZwuDQPKaMEqGSifCLr4y1AsfxBwnyn4UpqxhRFopQoqDUw6095H+ZZJewc BhOjoeyexdKTKnQ+Skp9B0REPSnWq3el0grJawiX363BNJjUO4y3/+z6hU3AnHE5hD0sFKX KuJJeMIQEirMWWGIUCD7w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:q2PW7GKONQ0=:WgZfc90V/tqNB1Hd1xC/S5 LZjIom7HuMFlANQ1dBR79PiOpPeSI7/iK+9ZZLdKsx1RHITK/doxaH/aAX617PQQyrwSlHITm iK2RymSuumLefEAQnnWUdj/VU3kNZEl9fIHFF+8r2Y8uT19mNq8MghlWHGMLNWvv2u3CP/TYR B4XzgSX5dY8m0/X4KNtBcdlXVhDfeRieQ+fnnq458z1VjPoEBvku7DbiESQBfKYJHpn3X/MAx 74dDshgzEU/Y2UvVHqpQG6zvp9Q6RzScCD7hb6hHI+VxecQ66xc7dRIPczQYhfBITVeuekpHr ZxBIk/4wnkfEBN9/FkYT/K6txyTRR2ZEMNMEvedS93tAFnUtEds7Az+dKCkkSXgrLhBMrLXOG 7kywzc8FUVXojOegkp8UyFvxk8V8ZDq5WWpB72sjK1geUG17KcRaFAik+j/xQbJG5lggDeXFz ESj36UWyduFnXH75ny1mfMrFRPPqPr16DKP08BGPvEm7yAfDEXSRiRMrh7c3q7gP1Pc0TVZJH 70pXHy51YBp4JmayO+CoIJ4sFGJU/Zc0ZJW3lHl9nq5+GoBxvA+veN4DGwcXrSdo8dvXUTyGZ VGDbJ2Y0RuhKYPjt4AY9QEaGaNj+TFmVftBTE8DTcJkxrnbnb3aQrDEOo1Rzx5IipIZ0K3zsl 3FUKZawgn+W1wMQK/lfk96XRgT/lT6aXriq8rI9CZvguiAHexvzJmmKHD8zF6HxWSE3tFR9mt IIacwtrcBkHJoTZ99NwajeKjZKZBavJH184g01yDDgrgEF8l6Z5mLet+t66KWKYIp85HTUPF X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:233462 Archived-At: > How old is this problem? It's with us at least since Emacs 25. > It doesn't sound too serious to me, FWIW > (but then I never use minibuffer-only frames). As a rule I don't use minibuffer-only frames either so I only recently bumped into a number of problems while looking at them a bit harder. The behavior I describe is a direct consequence of our idiosyncrasy to consider the minibuffer window of a minibuffer-only frame as the root window of its frame's window tree while we do not consider the minibuffer window of a "normal" frame as part of that frame's window tree. This confuses =E2=80=98walk-window-tree=E2=80=99 which may not int= erpret its MINIBUF argument as intended when "walking" a minibuffer-only frame. > I'd really like to release Emacs 26.2 VSN; the bug reports about > recent regressions or serious bugs all but ceased to arrive, so I > think we have a stable branch. Installing non-trivial (by their > effect) changes is something I'd like to avoid if possible. Since nobody ever complained I have no problems with postponing the fix to Emacs 27. martin